Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete - Page 21

The ATX · #**401** Posted **Feb 3, 2018, 10:30 PM**

This project originally had 332 residential units. The two additional residential floors apparently increased that to 350 units. That's based on this required Austin Parkland fee for the project posted to the site plan a couple weeks ago:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/attachment/a...lNUbmcwnjGpJXcIvhx61DGgh4Rl1eN8a6Q%3D%3D

Geckos_Rule · #**402** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinite101

Forget that, have you ever flown into La Guardia? You’re practically waving at the people in the buildings in Manhattan there.

Or San Diego. I just flew back into Austin from there the other day, and I actually got a little freaked out by how close we were to downtown flying in.

the Genral · #**403** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinite101

Forget that, have you ever flown into La Guardia? You’re practically waving at the people in the buildings in Manhattan there.

I have, and you're right. This youtube video is sort of what my view would have been if my seat was on the other side of the plane. The good stuff happens around 1 min 30 sec in.

https://youtu.be/sYGvKZkyMbk

spoonman · #**404** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I have, and you're right. This youtube video is sort of what my view would have been if my seat was on the other side of the plane. The good stuff happens around 1 min 30 sec in.

https://youtu.be/sYGvKZkyMbk

That’s awesome. If you like that you should watch a landing in San Diego.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C48UzJvvL8M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qIZxrX2H-WQ

the Genral · #**405** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman

That’s awesome. If you like that you should watch a landing in San Diego.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C48UzJvvL8M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qIZxrX2H-WQ

It's these examples that make me agree with those of you that think there's some serious 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 going on.

spoonman · #**406** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 3:53 PM**

Well, in fairness, SD is stuck with a cap of 500ft over all of downtown. No exceptions. Many projects in DTSD now are twins to accommodate the height limit, further increasing the plateau effect.

What is the verdict on the height of this building? Is there a cap on the rest of DT Austin?

The ATX · #**407** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman

Well, in fairness, SD is stuck with a cap of 500ft over all of downtown. No exceptions. Many projects in DTSD now are twins to accommodate the height limit, further increasing the plateau effect.

What is the verdict on the height of this building? Is there a cap on the rest of DT Austin?

San Diego has a beautiful skyline. So having a plateau is not a completely horrible thing.
This building is approved for 847'. But we are just finding out about possible FAA limits. The limit may be around 900', but a building two blocks from this proposal has been found to be a possible aviation obstruction at 555'. So the height limit seems random and ridiculous.

IluvATX · #**408** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

San Diego has a beautiful skyline. So having a plateau is not a completely horrible thing.
This building is approved for 847'. But we are just finding out about possible FAA limits. The limit may be around 900', but a building two blocks from this proposal has been found to be a possible aviation obstruction at 555'. So the height limit seems random and ridiculous.

How do we know if any of this FAA stuff is true? I find it hard to believe. Seems like any given city must have these same regulations. Surely multimillion dollar developments have more pull than some FAA guideline. Personally I'm sick of hearing about it until there's some proof.

The ATX · #**409** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

How do we know if any of this FAA stuff is true? I find it hard to believe. Seems like any given city must have these same regulations. Surely multimillion dollar developments have more pull than some FAA guideline. Personally I'm sick of hearing about it until there's some proof.

We don't know about the 900' limit, but we know that block 71 was flagged as a possible obstruction at 555'.

IluvATX · #**410** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

We don't know about the 900' limit, but we know that block 71 was flagged as a possible obstruction at 555'.

Does anyone know the lowest altitude a plane would be flying to make that approach? Never mind. It looks like 2000 feet so why would anything under 1000 feet matter.

Jdawgboy · #**411** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Does anyone know the lowest altitude a plane would be flying to make that approach? Never mind. It looks like 2000 feet so why would anything under 1000 feet matter.

It shouldn't, it doesn't make sense.

Austin55 · #**412** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:58 AM**

I wonder how much the FAA height limit cuts down due to cranes, since they're usually dozens of feet taller than permanent structures. Can cranes be over 900?

The ATX · #**413** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 6:05 AM**

I keep thinking of this headline: "FAA Triggers Panic in Skyscraper Forum."

Sigaven · #**414** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Is this what is driving our 500’ plateau?

I thought our building heights were sorta limiting themselves to 400' because of fire stairs/elevators. Not sure what the exact reason was but I think it was mentioned on this forum a couple of years ago.

Geckos_Rule · #**415** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I thought our building heights were sorta limiting themselves to 400' because of fire stairs/elevators. Not sure what the exact reason was but I think it was mentioned on this forum a couple of years ago.

Yeah, I forget the specific height and law surrounding this, but it was one of the big reasons that the Fairmont got shrunk. Essentially they were going to have to add another fire escape if it got tall enough, which would add a ton of cost, so they cut it down where they'd only need 2 (or however many).

Jdawgboy · #**416** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 6:20 PM**

Don't forget about our outdated F:A:R which is to blame for a lot of our stubbier final outcomes.

Armybrat · #**417** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinite101

Forget that, have you ever flown into La Guardia? You’re practically waving at the people in the buildings in Manhattan there.

I flew into Kai Tak Airport (Hong Kong) in 1958 in a C-47. Google up some pics of 747s landing there before it closed a few years ago.

JACKinBeantown · #**418** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 2:52 PM**

Why is there a flight path anywhere near downtown Austin? The airport is several miles to the southeast and the runways point north-south.

the Genral · #**419** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 3:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Why is there a flight path anywhere near downtown Austin? The airport is several miles to the southeast and the runways point north-south.

I always thought doing a downtown flyby as a good way to see the city.

JACKinBeantown · #**420** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 6:54 PM**

There's an airport right next to downtown Toronto. Let me re-phrase... right next the the CN Tower.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toront...502ab4c477!8m2!3d43.653226!4d-79.3831843